Western Australian Senate election: April 5

Follow the action of Western Australia’s historic Senate by-election campaign at this post, which will be updated semi-regularly with new information between now and polling day.

Sunday, March 23

I’ve finally found time to take a close look at the preferences situation and its likely effect on the result, on which Truth Seeker’s Monte Carlo simulations offer considerable insight. Here goes:

The result at last year’s election bucked the normal pattern in producing a result of four right, two left, rather than three-all. Within the right and left seat groupings were two separate battles, the results of which were never resolved. Clearly the Liberals won three seats on the right, the third elected candidate being Linda Reynolds, but the last one had the potential to go to either the Palmer United Party or the Sports Party. On the left, it was not clear whether both seats were won by Labor, or if Scott Ludlam held his seat for the Greens at the expense of Labor’s Louise Pratt. The major determinant of the left’s weak showing was a low vote for both Labor, down 3.11% on an already poor result in 2010 to 26.59%, and the Greens, down 4.47% on a strong 2010 result to 9.49%. Even when supplemented by the vote for smaller parties commonly reckoned to be part of the left, mainly the Sex Party (1.49%), Help End Marijuana Prohibition (1.06%), Wikileaks (0.75%), Animal Justice (0.74%), the total left vote was only 40.3%, or 40.6% if the Democrats are deemed to count. Either sum is a fair distance short of the 42.86% required for a third quota.

However, the situation was more complicated than usual due to both the high micro-party vote, and the extent to which micro-parties of left and right directed preferences to each other rather than larger parties of closer ideological proximity, a phenomenon largely attributed to the deal-making prowess of Glenn Druery. This was generally to the detriment of the left, particularly on the scenario in which preference-harvesting success story the Sports Party emerged triumphant at the final count. Among the parties contributing to the Sports Party snowball were the Sex Party, HEMP, Wikileaks and Animal Justice, whose preferences were accordingly denied to the Greens and Labor. Between the four of them, votes for “left” parties which ended up on the “right” accounted for about 4% of the total.

This time around, it appears the Sex Party, Wikileaks and Animal Justice have been stung by the controversies that attended their earlier pragmatic and/or perverse preference judgements, as each is running more conventionally left-wing tickets. Had they done so in September, the Sports Party would have been unable to make it to a quota on any scenario. Only HEMP (1.06%) looks to be on board the Glenn Druery train, with the main left parties buried deep down its ticket. With the potential for leakage thus reduced, it will only take a swing from right to left of 3.5% to convert last year’s four right, two left result into three-all.

On the right side of the ledger, it should be noted that the potential existed for the preference axe to have swung the other way last September, given the high placing granted to the Greens by Palmer United. Had the aforementioned left-wing minor parties directed preferences to the Greens, the scenario that saw the Sports Party elected would instead have delivered seats to both Louise Pratt and Scott Ludlam, with both Sports and Palmer excluded and the 5.0% Palmer vote shifting from right to left in the shape of a preference transfer to Ludlam. That would no doubt have caused considerable umbrage towards Palmer United in conservative circles. However, in keeping with the generally more straightforward picture this time around, the Palmer United ticket is generally anti-left, putting right-of-centre minor parties ahead of the Coalition, with Labor and then the Greens further down amidst mostly left-of-centre concerns.

Should a three-all result transpire, it seems very likely the result will be three Liberal, two Labor, one Greens, as it was in 2004, 2007 and 2010, barring a surprisingly large transfer of votes from Liberal to Palmer United. Otherwise, the fourth right seat will again be a tussle between Palmer United and an indeterminate preference-harvester. There are a number of reasons to favour the former, namely the extended Palmer publicity drive, the likelihood that lower turnout will harm the micro-party vote, and the aforementioned absence of the Sex Party and Wikileaks from preference harvesting arrangements. Conversely, the Sports and Motoring Enthusiasts parties may get a boost from the Russell Woolf/Verity James ticket, consisting of erstwhile ABC personalities running to plead the cause for the public broadcaster. As Paul Murray complained in Saturday’s West Australian, their ticket places Louise Pratt considerably higher than Linda Reynolds, and thus promises to deliver a free kick of indeterminate size to Labor. However, it also places the Sports Party and the Motoring Enthusiasts ahead of Labor, thus increasing the apparently diminished chances of one of those parties pulling off another boilover.

On the left, Labor has done the better out of the preference realignment in that the Sex Party has favoured it over the Greens, which amounted to twice as many votes last year as were cast for the Greens-preferencing Wikileaks. Ludlam would thus have to hope that Labor state secretary Simon Mead speaks truly when he argues lower turnout will hurt Labor, as any improvement in their vote would give him a higher hurdle to clear.

Friday, March 21

Antony Green’s preference calculator is open for business. Occasional pseph blogger Truth Seeker, who became a household name (in certain types of household at least) in tracking the Senate count in the weeks following the federal election, has also swung back into action, finding the most likely result to be three Liberal, two Labor and one Greens, based on a series of assumptions that may or may not prove accurate.

Tuesday, March 18

Group voting tickets have been published by the AEC site. Below are simplified versions thereof, which ignore placement of all candidates who are either certain to be elected, or certain not to be. In the former camp are the two two Liberal candidates and the top Labor candidate. In the latter are all candidates on non-major party tickets other than the lead candidate, and all below number three on the Liberal ticket and number two on the Labor ticket. For example, the DLP superficially appears to have Labor in the middle somewhere, but an exception has been made for Louise Pratt who is given last place, which means that DLP preferences will end up with anyone other than Labor at the decisive point in the count.

The ballot paper draw was conducted today, and thanks to aphoto tweeted by the Greens from the AEC office, we can see that there are 33 groups listed – not as bad as the 44 from New South Wales last year, but bad enough that the font size on the ballot paper will have to be smaller this time. In order:

State election diversions have left me with regrettably little to say about the momentous re-run of Western Australia’s Senate election on April 5, but here finally is a post that will be regularly updated with noteworthy developments as the campaign proceeds. The electoral roll closed on Friday, and the remainder of the timetable runs as follows:

Thursday, March 13. Close of nominations.
Friday, March 14. Ballot paper draw.
Saturday, March 15. Lodgement of group voting tickets.
Tuesday, March 18. Early voting commences.
Saturday, April 5. Polling day.

So it is on Friday that we will find out exactly how many candidates the ballot paper will have to accommodate, and the precise scale of the related logistical issues facing the beleagured Australian Electoral Commission, and on Saturday that we will have a clear sense of the preference terrain. Most of the news generated by the campaign so far has accordingly related to the preference negotiations, which has provided a succession of bad news for the Greens. Labor has indicated it will break a practice of 10 years in not giving the Greens their second preference, essentially because their incentive to do so is weakened by the fact that the Greens do not have lower house preferences to barter with. Help End Marijuana Prohibition says it will drop the Greens down its order because, as Heath Aston of Fairfax reports, it has not delivered on its promise to call a drug summit in Canberra. The Sex Party says it will do the same because, as Andrew Tillett of The West Australian reports, it is “furious the Greens ran a national social media campaign in the lead-up to the September 7 poll, claiming that a vote for the Sex Party would help elect Pauline Hanson to a NSW Senate seat” (albeit that the claim was by no means unfair).

The implications of left-wing minor parties, which can be said to include the Democrats and Wikileaks as well as the aforementioned HEMP and Sex Party, crossing the ideological divide to participate in micro-party preference coalitions is considered by Charles Richardson in Crikey. If left and right parties directed preferences to each other, it is likely that both Louise Pratt and Scott Ludlam would get up for a result of two Labor and one Greens, while a tussle would emerge on the right between the third Liberal and the leading right-wing preference harvester. However, if preferences from the aforementioned left-wing micro parties end up with said preference-harvester ahead of Labor and the Greens, the chance increases of the left again having only two seats, and Pratt and Ludlam again fighting it out for the second. If Labor puts the preference-harvester ahead of the Greens, the chances of a four right, two left result increases still further in the event that Pratt falls out of the count at an earlier stage than Ludlam.

It’s got nothing to do with federal politics, but Lib #3 probably wishes Troy Buswell had waited a couple of months before having his “breakdown”. If he’s really going this time, a potential Vasse by-election (and having to find a new treasurer two months before the budget) would be an unwelcome distraction for the Libs.

Psephos, that is true enough. Which do you think would be the best result for Labor though – A Green senator or a PUP senator? I know of course you would prefer another Labor senator to either, but Labor’s preference distribution only comes into play when Labor’s last candidate is excluded.

the best result is this in my earlier post. but if the libs lost a seat to say pup then there would be 8 cross bench senators. with libs on 32 needing 7/8 to pass anything in the senate. that would be Alp 2 lib 2 1gr 1pup

Psephos, that is true enough. Which do you think would be the best result for Labor though – A Green senator or a PUP senator? I know of course you would prefer another Labor senator to either, but Labor’s preference distribution only comes into play when Labor’s last candidate is excluded.

I’m not sure I care one way or the other. Labor’s allocation of preferences should be determined solely by what is most likely to maximise Labor’s chances of winning two (preferably three) seats. If a preference deal with the Greens achieves that, fine. If some other arrangement achieves that, equally fine. Ludlam is no friend of Labor, and if loses his seat I will not mind greatly.

I don’t like this attitude to preferences. It should be based on passing your votes to the party with your preferred ideologies. But if we don’t get 2 labor + 1 green then we won’t need a senate anymore. Labor should realise this.

Labor listens to greens and greens supporters talk a lot of rubbish, most elections about how hard it is to distinguish labor from liberal as the greens go through a ridiculous and naive process of treating labor and liberal as the same.

Perhaps based on all the years of hearing this Labor should direct preferences straight to the liberals. *rolls eyes*

Elections, under preferential voting systems (whether single member or PR), are not just about getting your own candidates up but also trying to get the other candidates elected to be useful to you in the term of government that they are elected for.

Having a Green Senator, rather than a PUP/micro party/Coalition Senator, increases the ability of the ALP to block Abbott Government Legislation it does not like and pass bills by reducing the number of non-Green crossbenchers required to block/pass such things.

I thought there had been a WA Senate only opinion poll, perhaps in the West Australian, over the last month or so. This might tell us something a national poll, even broken down by state level, doesn’t. People vote diferently in by-elections. I’m struggling to find it though.

Tom the first and best posted Tuesday, March 11, 2014 at 11:41 am @ 14

Elections, under preferential voting systems (whether single member or PR), are not just about getting your own candidates up but also trying to et the other candidates elected to be useful to you in the term of government that they are elected for.

Having a Green Senator, rather than a PUP/micro party/Coalition Senator, increases the ability of the ALP to block Abbott Government Legislation it does not like and pass bills by reducing the number of non-Green crossbenchers required to block/pass such things.

It also means Labor have more likelihood of being able to set up Senate inquiries that are embarrassing to the Abbott Government. Life for Labor will be far better with three Senators of the left (Greens or other) elected rather than two. Further, if Labor were to win the next election I think they might well prefer having a Greens Senator rather than a PUP Senator elected.

On another note, I would rate Ludlam as one of the best Senators we have. I don’t agree with him on everything (e.g. Uranium mining). But on issues such as the NBN, data retention, Internet filtering and privacy he’s top spot on and not captured by the spooks like the major parties seem to be. I think we’re all better off with Ludlam in the Senate.

Regardless of what happens with preference allocations I’ll be voting below the line anyway.

IF the ALP care about the country and not their own petty power, they will preference the group that will limit Abbott’s power. Doesn’t matter who it is, they must put the good of the country before the welfare of the ALP or stupid high school tit for tat games with the Greens…

I believe this government is a real danger to our democracy and the ALP need to take a principalled stand against them..

The Wikileaks Party candidate endorsed for WA's re-run Senate election has pulled out of the race, citing "unforeseen personal reasons".

Gerry Georgatos, who ran in the September poll, was announced as the lead candidate in the April 5 poll after party leader Julian Assange was not allowed to run because he had not spent enough time in WA in the past six years.

But one hour before the close of nominations on Thursday, Mr Georgatos withdrew from the race.

"There arrive events in people's lives that require their commitment, and it is my duty to honour such a commitment," he said.

"However, I will remain with the WikiLeaks Party, and I will campaign for them, for their imperatives, and I support these imperatives through the presence of the WA senate candidates."

The new lead candidate is now Tibor Meszaros, the general manager and producer of community television station West TV.

Today, using the results of the member survey of preference options, Gery Georgatos and Omar Todd submitted the WikiLeaks Party Group Voting Ticket to the AEC. Below is the order in which preferences will flow when a voter choose to vote ‘1’ for WikiLeaks Party ‘Above the line’.

Senate deals leave Palmer on the outer
Andrew Tillett Canberra The West Australian
March 17, 2014, 4:54 am

Clive Palmer's chances of winning a WA Senate seat have been dealt a blow, with preference deals cut between political parties appearing to favour the status quo of three Liberals, two Labor and one Green.

But the Help End Marijuana Prohibition (HEMP) Party has emerged as a smoky to sneak in at the expense of the Greens' Scott Ludlam after drawing support across the ideological spectrum.

Amid claims of doublecrossing among minor parties, the Australian Electoral Commission yesterday released the group voting tickets that show how parties will distribute their preferences as they are eliminated from the count.

It is likely to be fought out between the third Liberal candidate and the Palmer United party, with the Liberals more favoured to win.

But should Hemp, which has done some canny preference dealings with both left- and right-wing micro-party candidates, poll ahead of the PUP after smaller party preferences have been allocated, then PUP’s preferences could put the lead Hemp candidate James Moylan into the Senate.

The NSW and Victorian Right need to ditch their North Korea mentality when dealing with the left.

Thanks to the ALP getting their act together, Pratt is incredibly unlikely to lose this time around, to the relief of most people on either side of the Labor/Green divide. Hill can’t win from number #3. So the churlish behaviour of some on the ALP right serves very little purpose except to try and continue their occasional tradition of electing MPs who make their lives difficult in parliament to spite the Greens.

I dare say that if the HEMP Party is elected on Labor preferences they are going to look very silly.

The attitude certain parts of the Victorian and NSW Right have when it comes to negotiating preferences when there is no gain for the ALP.

Granted, in this case they’ve learned from the Fielding fiasco and not gone for conservatives above the Greens, but directing preferences to wacky fringe parties isn’t all that much brighter. I’d love to see the fun Labor could have with having to negotiate with the HEMP Party on whether or not they get to block Abbott legislation.

Rebecca: The left needs to learn that it’s not the 1970s anymore, socialist and communist partiea only get tiny pecentages of the vote and the Thatcher-Reagan changes are not going to be undone. Despite the success of Lenin, there was never a socialist revolution in
any advanced industrialised country.

Provided the Palmer Party doesn’t explode (or implode) before the next Qld elections, they will only do well over there, seeing how Newman has tarnished the conservative brand while Labor has still a long way to go with rebuilding its reputation.

By “well”, I mean slightly better than they have done in any election including the Federal one.

I don’t think there is quite the level of discontent in WA (ie Perth) that there was in September as far as Labor is concerned.

Barnett has had a terrible time and Brand Liberal is not travelling all that well.

Whether this is fertile ground for PUP is yet to be shown but I suspect 3-2-1, Liberal-Labor-Green is a reasonable scenario, given the Libs have gone off the boil, Labor is not so much on the nose (Shorten came and went here with barely a comment) and maybe not so many will turn out to vote.

Psephos: I think the RET is pretty popular here in WA. My sample may be biased as a Green, but there are Greenish liberals here and the backlash from a State Government effort to reduce feed in tariffs for solar made them get back in their box. The State Liberal energy minister seems to be advocating renewables as a solution to the thinly distributed large and expensive South-West Integrated Grid. I suspect the WA public and Liberal voters I know, are quite pro renewables and the Liberals may avoid anything embarrassing on RET for fear of leaking votes to the Greens. As always theres the full broad church of opinions in WA, but I doubt rolling back the RET is a winner in WA.

About this blog

William Bowe is a doctoral candidate with the University of Western Australia’s Discipline of Political Science and International Relations. He has been running the electoral studies blog The Poll Bludger since January 2004, independently until September 2008 and thereafter with Crikey.